camelot_net_worth_tracker

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by disclosing that records are stored in the browser and processing is local. It does not explain how repeated calls behave despite idempotentHint, or whether records accumulate or overwrite.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first phrase. Minor redundancy exists between 'stored in this browser' and 'Local browser processing,' plus a typo with double periods.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides enough context: it tracks manually entered assets and liabilities, keeps records locally, and processes in the browser. The net-worth formula is not stated explicitly, but it is strongly implied by the tool name and parameter semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description only repeats the high-level notions of assets and liabilities without adding the relationship between them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Track') and a specific resource ('manually entered assets and liabilities'), which distinguishes it from siblings like balance_sheet_maker or tax_estimator. It never explicitly says it computes net worth by subtracting liabilities from assets, but the tool name and parameters make that inferable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'manually entered assets and liabilities' implies this tool is for manual data entry rather than imported or derived financial data. However, it does not name alternatives or explain when not to use this tool versus the many nearby financial calculators.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.